SVN的2个主要优点很少被提及:

Large file support. In addition to code, I use SVN to manage my home directory. SVN is the only VCS (distributed or not) that doesn't choke on my TrueCrypt files (please correct me if there's another VCS that handles 500MB+ files effectively). This is because diff comparisons are streamed (this is a very essential point). Rsync is unacceptable because it's not 2-way. Partial repository (subdir) checkout/checkin. Mercurial and bzr don't support this, and git's support is limited. This is bad in a team environment, but invaluable if I want to check something out on another computer from my home dir.

只是我的经验。

在做了更多的研究，并查看了这个链接:https://git.wiki.kernel.org/articles/g/i/t/GitSvnComparison_cb82.html

(摘录如下):

It's incredibly fast. No other SCM that I have used has been able to keep up with it, and I've used a lot, including Subversion, Perforce, darcs, BitKeeper, ClearCase and CVS. It's fully distributed. The repository owner can't dictate how I work. I can create branches and commit changes while disconnected on my laptop, then later synchronize that with any number of other repositories. Synchronization can occur over many media. An SSH channel, over HTTP via WebDAV, by FTP, or by sending emails holding patches to be applied by the recipient of the message. A central repository isn't necessary, but can be used. Branches are even cheaper than they are in Subversion. Creating a branch is as simple as writing a 41 byte file to disk. Deleting a branch is as simple as deleting that file. Unlike Subversion branches carry along their complete history. without having to perform a strange copy and walk through the copy. When using Subversion I always found it awkward to look at the history of a file on branch that occurred before the branch was created. from #git: spearce: I don't understand one thing about SVN in the page. I made a branch i SVN and browsing the history showed the whole history a file in the branch Branch merging is simpler and more automatic in Git. In Subversion you need to remember what was the last revision you merged from so you can generate the correct merge command. Git does this automatically, and always does it right. Which means there's less chance of making a mistake when merging two branches together. Branch merges are recorded as part of the proper history of the repository. If I merge two branches together, or if I merge a branch back into the trunk it came from, that merge operation is recorded as part of the repostory history as having been performed by me, and when. It's hard to dispute who performed the merge when it's right there in the log. Creating a repository is a trivial operation: mkdir foo; cd foo; git init That's it. Which means I create a Git repository for everything these days. I tend to use one repository per class. Most of those repositories are under 1 MB in disk as they only store lecture notes, homework assignments, and my LaTeX answers. The repository's internal file formats are incredible simple. This means repair is very easy to do, but even better because it's so simple its very hard to get corrupted. I don't think anyone has ever had a Git repository get corrupted. I've seen Subversion with fsfs corrupt itself. And I've seen Berkley DB corrupt itself too many times to trust my code to the bdb backend of Subversion. Git's file format is very good at compressing data, despite it's a very simple format. The Mozilla project's CVS repository is about 3 GB; it's about 12 GB in Subversion's fsfs format. In Git it's around 300 MB.

在阅读了所有这些之后，我确信Git是可行的方法(尽管存在一点学习曲线)。我也在Windows平台上使用过Git和SVN。

我很想听听其他人在读完上面的文章后会怎么说?

这可以归结为:

你的发展是线性的吗?如果是这样，您应该坚持使用Subversion。

另一方面，如果您的开发不是线性的，这意味着您将需要为不同的更改创建分支，然后将这些更改合并回主开发线(Git称为主分支)，那么Git将为您做更多的工作。

重点是，Git是分布式VCS, Subversion是集中式VCS。分布式vcs比较难理解，但是有很多优点。如果不需要这些优点，Subversion可能是更好的选择。

另一个问题是工具支持。您计划使用的工具更好地支持哪种VCS ?

编辑:三年前我是这样回答的:

Git目前只能通过Cygwin或MSYS在Windows上运行。 Subversion从一开始就支持Windows。作为解决方案 对于Windows可能为你工作，可能会有问题，作为最 Git的开发人员在Linux上工作，没有可移植性 心灵从一开始。目前我更喜欢Subversion 在Windows下开发。几年后，这可能就无关紧要了。

现在世界发生了一点变化。Git现在在windows上有一个很好的实现。虽然我没有在windows上进行全面测试(因为我不再使用这个系统)，但我很有信心，所有主要的VCS (SVN、Git、Mercurial、Bazaar)现在都有适当的windows实现。SVN的这一优势已经不复存在。其他要点(集中式vs.分布式以及工具支持的检查)仍然有效。

我会选择SVN，因为它传播更广泛，知名度更高。

我想Git更适合Linux用户。

YouTube上有一个关于这个的有趣视频。这句话出自莱纳斯·托瓦尔兹本人:google Tech Talk:莱纳斯·托瓦尔兹谈git